Partly allowed

Apurwa Haldhar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC7 Aug 2023CRA/215/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed the criminal appeal against the conviction for drug smuggling under the NDPS Act. While affirming the conviction, the Court reduced the term of rigorous imprisonment from seven years to six years, considering the appellant had already spent considerable time in jail and had no prior criminal record. The fine was upheld.

What did the court decide?

Sentence of rigorous imprisonment reduced to six years; fine affirmed; appeal allowed in part.

Apurwa Haldhar Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Narcotics (NDPS) | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

Criminal Appeal No.215 of 2020

¶5

Apurva Haldhar, S/o Raghunath Haldhar, aged about 22 years, R/o Chhalera, Sector-44, Gali No.1, Goutambudh Nagar, Noida, P.S. Section 39 Noida, District - Goutambudh Nagar, (U.P.), permanent resident of Balughat, P.S. Khirdirpur, District - Malda Town (West Bengal),

¶6

---- Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, Police Station G.R.P. Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh,

¶9

---- Respondent

¶10

For Appellant :Shri Akash Shrivastava, Advocate For State/Respondent :Shri Amit Singh, P.L.

¶11

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel

¶12

Order on Board

¶13

07/08/2023

¶14

This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 29.01.2020 passed in Special Criminal Case No.63/2018 by the Special Judge (NDPS Act), Raipur, Chhattisgarh, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short 'the NDPS Act') and sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years and fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for one year.

¶15

¶16

According to the case of the prosecution, on 09.07.2018 SubInspector L.S. Rajput (PW-8), G.R.P. Raipur, received a secret information from the informant that one unknown person has kept illegal cannabis (ganja) in his bag at Plate Form No.1, below overbridge Raipur. The said information was recorded and after completion of other necessary procedure and formalities, the Investigating OfÏcer L.S. Rajput reached at the spot. On being searched, one bag containing 17 Kg of cannabis (ganja) was seized from the possession of the appellant. Sample packet 'A-1' containing 50gm of contraband was prepared. First Information Report (Ex.P-23) was registered and the seized cannabis (ganja) and sample packets were handed over to the Malkhana Moharir for safe custody. Sample packets were sent for chemical examination to the F.S.L.and FSL report vide Ex.P-29 was found positive. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed and Trial Court framed the charges. To prove the guilt of the appellant, prosecution examined as many as 08 witnesses, whereas no defence witness has been examined by the appellant. The appellant in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. has abjured his guilt and pleaded innocence.

¶17

After completion of the trial, the Trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offence mentioned in paragraph one of this judgment against which this appeal has been preferred by the appellant.

¶18

Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that appellant has been wrongly convicted by the Trial Court without there being

¶19

¶20

any sufÏcient and clinching evidence available on record. He further submits that none of the independent witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. Conviction of the appellant is mainly based upon the statement of the Investigation OfÏcer, L.S. Rajput (PW-8) and merely, on the statement of this witness, conviction of the appellant is not sustainable. Alternatively, it is argued that if the Court finds that the alleged incident has been committed by the appellant, then considering the quantity of the seized contraband (ganja), the appellant may be sentence for the period already undergone by him.

¶21

Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the State supported the impugned judgment and submits that the sentence awarded by the Trial Court is just and proper and requires no interference.

¶22

I have heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record minutely.

¶23

It is not in dispute that in the present case, the independent witnesses namely Santosh Sahu (PW-1) and Farooq Memon (PW-2) have not supported the case of prosecution. The conviction of the appellant is mainly based upon the statement of the Investigating OfÏcer L.S. Rajput (PW-8), Sub-Inspector and witnesses of other proceedings.

¶24

On the basis of the evidence available on record, it is held by the Trial Court that the prosecution has duly complied with the provisions of Section 42, 55 & 57 of the NDPS Act. The said finding is based on the evidence on record which is neither perverse nor contrary. Learned

¶25

¶26

Counsel appearing for the appellant also does not make any dispute regarding compliance of the above Sections by the prosecution. Thus, all the necessary provisions were duly complied with by the prosecution.

¶27

Considering the statment of the Investigating OfÏcer L.S. Rajput (PW-8), and other witnesses namely Surendra Ojha (PW-4), A.S.I. and Suresh Kumar Mishra (PW-5), Constable No.377, the Trial Court arrived on the conclusion that the appellant was in the exclusive possession of the alleged contraband (ganja). The above finding is also based on the evidence on record. The Investigating OfÏcer L.S. Rajput (PW-8) and above mentioned witnesses remained firm during their cross-examination. There is nothing on their statements on the basis of which their statements can be disbelieved. Thus, in the considered view of this Court, the Trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act and the said conviction is afÏrmed by this Court also.

¶28

With regard to the sentence, the appellant has been sentenced by the Trial Court to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-. Considering the facts that the appellant has already undergone about five years and three months in this case, he has no criminal antecedent, he is aged about 27 years and further considering the quantity of the seized contraband (ganja) which is below commercial quantity, I am of the view that the ends of justice would be served if he is sentenced with R.I. for six years. Accordingly, his jail sentence is reduced to six years from seven years. The fine sentence imposed upon by the Trial Court is hereby afÏrmed.

¶29

¶30

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent shown above.

¶31

Record of the Court below be sent back along with copy of this judgment forthwith for information and necessary action.

¶32

Sd/- (Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge

¶33

Prakash

Apurwa Haldhar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Apurwa Haldhar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramakant Dewangan Vs Manoj Kumar Pingua

Prahlad Kumar Tandan Vs Manoj Kumar Pingua

Hemant Sahu Vs Piyush Ghosh

Maheep Upadhyay Vs Avanish Sharan

Junas Lakda Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jagdish Sharma @ Dhanpat Sharma Vs Smt. Urmila Sharma